Will there be a new Mac Pro in 2015?

[goMac]

Nope. Economics drives the bus. And it's pretty obvious that the nMP was meant to branch off from the traditional route.

Please explain how it was an economic choice when the alternative was impossible under the laws of time and space. Please explain how shipping a tower Mac with 6 Thunderbolt ports was ever a technical option.

It's easy to float around the technical issues at play here when you actively aren't acknowledging anything else being said.

 

[AidenShaw]

simple

Please explain how it was an economic choice when the alternative was impossible under the laws of time and space.

Please explain how shipping a tower Mac with 6 Thunderbolt ports was ever a technical option.

It's easy to float around the technical issues at play here when you actively aren't acknowledging anything else being said.

If the same components used in the MP6,1 were put into a tower form factor, you'd have a tower with six T-Bolt ports. I have an HP Z820 with T-Bolt.

There's nothing magical about a cylinder vs a box.

 

[MacProCard]

What's this new market? You still haven't defined it yourself. What can the nMP do that other computers can't?

Never said it was supposed to be just like the oMP, however they are meant to serve the same userbase (for the most part).

What does this even mean?

On Apple's Mac Pro website. The first section under performance is Video editing. That means someone very high up in Apple wanted that listed first on the site. It got top billing. Not by accident either. Video editing is what the marketing machine at Apple wants you to know first before you quit reading.

And the very first thing they say on the website about the nMP is this isn't you old Mac Pro. --" the result was something entirely new." So I doubt how they updated the oMP has anything to do with how they're going to update the nMP.

No. While it's is meant to serve the same type user, it's also designed to appeal to more people. How do we capture more market share to pay for all the changes. We broaden our appeal. --Maybe you just want a very powerful word,excel, internet machine that is whisper quite and energy conscious. ---Might play around with 4k down the road. Who knows. Point is it's just not for the "Pros" anymore. Thus a larger market potential.

It means some people seem to have a very personal connection with a brand tag.

 

[MacProCard]

Please explain how it was an economic choice when the alternative was impossible under the laws of time and space. Please explain how shipping a tower Mac with 6 Thunderbolt ports was ever a technical option.

It's easy to float around the technical issues at play here when you actively aren't acknowledging anything else being said.

Explain what to you? Economics drives technology.

 

[deconstruct60]

On Apple's Mac Pro website. The first section under performance is Video editing. That means someone very high up in Apple wanted that listed first on the site. It got top billing. Not by accident either. Video editing is what the marketing machine at Apple wants you to know first before you quit reading.

That isn't well grounded. Remember that this redesign was a skunk works project. The primary apps allowed 'early access' to this new system design focus would be Apple apps. What does Apple have. FCPX , Aperture, Logic. Now which one of those will get the biggest bang-for-buck out of the new approach? FCP X. Hence, lead with FCP X.

DaVinci resolve had already had work done to take advantage of dual GPU systems ( Nvidia Maximus on Windows set ups http://www.nvidia.com/object/multi-gpu-for-media-entertainment.html ). This present just for parity; not because was solidtary focus.

Those are the two apps in the first entry. FCPX 4.4x times baseline and the DaVinci even better 6x times baseline.


Next entry.... 3D apps. While there is an 8x on a benchmark the real apps come in at 5.0x and 4.4x. Not as good as the first group.

Next entry .. Photography Aperture 1.9x lower still ( even with possibility of early access Aperture didn't get much traction with application updates. ). Photography and no Adobe products? Adobe haters or Adobe didn't have time to tweak and optimized app out? Probably more so the latter.


Next entry Pixelmator ( this app highly leverages Apple foundational libraries. If there is a library speed up present they probably will snag it early even with limited time with the not-as-Black-Project "previewed" Mac Pro). 2.4x ( better than Aperture but still not as good as the first two groups).

The rest don't even has baseline versus improved numbers. (Audio and Science and Technology). That is probably just as much driven by lack of time to adjust apps as it is anything else.


For the next iteration where the Mac Pro isn't a ultra top secret project they should have better opportunity to come up with a more well rounded set of benchmarks. It still won't be surprising to see Apple apps on top though as it is an opportunity to sell two things ( kill two birds with one stone) at once. Just because Video happened to optimize to new design focus early doesn't mean other apps cannot or will not over time.


The "what is" FCPX page has a MBP higher up on the page than a Mac Pro. http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/what-is/ That doesn't particularly point to MBP as being the sole primary target of FCPX . Folks formerly had a fit when the FCP pages weren't overwhelmed with Mac Pro pictures.

 

[goMac]

If the same components used in the MP6,1 were put into a tower form factor, you'd have a tower with six T-Bolt ports. I have an HP Z820 with T-Bolt.

There's nothing magical about a cylinder vs a box.

Sure. What I meant was something you'd reasonably put in a tower. You could put it in a tower, but you'd have tons of empty space, as you don't have enough PCI-E lanes for any slots beyond the GPUs. Apple could have maybe done PCI-E GPUs, but we've beaten that discussion to death. It would have required all the breakout wires, which would have given Ive a stroke.

(I'm not endorsing what Apple did with the PCI-E GPUs. But I get their motivations for doing so.)

Explain what to you? Economics drives technology.

I suppose I'd like you to explain the whole "economics is the only thing that drives technology" thing. I tend to think the laws of physics also act as a bound.

The old Mac Pro was marketed first at video editors too. I don't know what you think has changed here.

Heck, I can go back to the Powerbook G3 marketing poster and...

Gasp!

 

[MacProCard]

That isn't well grounded. Remember that this redesign was a skunk works project. The primary apps allowed 'early access' to this new system design focus would be Apple apps. What does Apple have. FCPX , Aperture, Logic. Now which one of those will get the biggest bang-for-buck out of the new approach? FCP X. Hence, lead with FCP X.

Point out what you like on different pages etc. But on the nMP website under performance they have video editing listed first as it was considered the most important/most marketable feature. Think what you want, but that is how it works.

----------

I suppose I'd like you to explain the whole "economics is the only thing that drives technology" thing. I tend to think the laws of physics also act as a bound.

You can the most powerful technology in the world, but if our economy doesn't invest in it, it sits dormant. Solar power and batteries have been around since the 70's. The money wasn't there to move the technology forward.

 

[goMac]

You can the most powerful technology in the world, but if our economy doesn't invest in it, it sits dormant. Solar power and batteries have been around since the 70's. The money wasn't there to move the technology forward.

Ok... that still doesn't explain how economic concerns are supposed to bypass a single Xeon not having enough PCIe lanes. The alternative choice you're thinking Apple had was never a possible alternative at all. This isn't Apple coming to a fork in the road and deciding to go down the one that would build a machine for a different audience. This is Apple getting to a fork in the road, and one of the choices was totally walled off. There never was an economic choice here because there was no choice.

How about you explain exactly what choices Apple had here to go with? Because I'd like you to explain how a classic tower was ever a choice at all with 6 Thunderbolt ports.

 

[MacProCard]

Ok... that still doesn't explain how economic concerns are supposed to bypass a single Xeon not having enough PCIe lanes. The alternative choice you're thinking Apple had was never a possible alternative at all. This isn't Apple coming to a fork in the road and deciding to go down the one that would build a machine for a different audience. This is Apple getting to a fork in the road, and one of the choices was totally walled off. There never was an economic choice here because there was no choice.

How about you explain exactly what choices Apple had here to go with? Because I'd like you to explain how a classic tower was ever a choice at all with 6 Thunderbolt ports.

Sure. One of the benefits of going with the new design is 6TB ports. They got a lot of new features going with the new design. You actually think everything about the nMP has to do with 6 TB ports? I'd love to see that pitched to the CFO.

The one design concept they seem to be most proud of...Thermal core.

 

[beaker7]

Ok... that still doesn't explain how economic concerns are supposed to bypass a single Xeon not having enough PCIe lanes. The alternative choice you're thinking Apple had was never a possible alternative at all. This isn't Apple coming to a fork in the road and deciding to go down the one that would build a machine for a different audience. This is Apple getting to a fork in the road, and one of the choices was totally walled off. There never was an economic choice here because there was no choice.

How about you explain exactly what choices Apple had here to go with? Because I'd like you to explain how a classic tower was ever a choice at all with 6 Thunderbolt ports.

You don't need 6 ports if you have internal expansion and ability to use modern industry standard graphics cards.

Heck you'd even be able to use the latest 5K displays without eating all of your IO bandwidth or buying an entire new machine.

 

[goMac]

You actually think everything about the nMP has to do with 6 TB ports?

Yes.

I'd love to see that pitched to the CFO.

I'm pretty sure it was.

Even if they had just added 2 Thunderbolt ports they probably would have lost one PCIe slot. 4 Thunderbolt ports would have probably cost the two non-GPU slots.

4 Thunderbolt ports is very reasonable on a pro machine, and that alone would have cost the two extra PCIe slots.

Let me ask you this: Do you think a better choice should have been to keep the non-GPU PCIe slots, or have 4 Thunderbolt ports? That's not an economic choice at all.

This is not an "I think" thing. The design of the Mac Pro has everything to do with the decision to add Thunderbolt 2 ports. You can look at the specs of the box and see the problems without needing to read minds at Apple or anything.

Anand wrote a nice article about this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/8

Even if Apple's marketing wanted to go a more traditional direction, they could not have. It would be impossible. There are just no PCIe lanes left. There are barely enough for the Thunderbolt connections that are there, and the SSD doesn't even get dedicated lanes.

You don't need 6 ports if you have internal expansion and ability to use modern industry standard graphics cards.

Heck you'd even be able to use the latest 5K displays without eating all of your IO bandwidth or buying an entire new machine.

Which is true, but Apple's already made the choice to commit to Thunderbolt years ago. If you're not a big fan of Thunderbolt, you're probably going to continue being unhappy with Apple's offerings.

 

[MacProCard]

Yes.



I'm pretty sure it was.

Even if they had just added 2 Thunderbolt controller they probably would have lost one PCIe slot. 4 Thunderbolt ports would have probably cost the two non-GPU slots.

4 Thunderbolt ports is very reasonable on a pro machine, and that alone would have cost the two extra PCIe slots.

Let me ask you this: Do you think a better choice should have been to keep the non-GPU PCIe slots, or have 4 Thunderbolt ports? That's not an economic choice at all.

This is not an "I think" thing. The design of the Mac Pro has everything to do with the decision to add Thunderbolt 2 ports. You can look at the specs of the box and see the problems without needing to read minds at Apple or anything.



Which is true, but Apple's already made the choice to commit to Thunderbolt years ago. If you're not a big fan of Thunderbolt, you're probably going to continue being unhappy with Apple's offerings.

Well, if that is how you feel. Someone at Apple must have really really loved TB2 based upon real world economics Especially given the competition doesn't seem to care much about it so far. And have been able to implement in their products without all that extra cost.

 

[goMac]

Well, if that is how you feel. Someone at Apple must have really really loved TB2 based upon real world economics Especially given the competition doesn't seem to care much about it so far. And have been able to implement in their products without all that extra cost.

Apple did kind of co-invent it...

 

[beaker7]

Which is true, but Apple's already made the choice to commit to Thunderbolt years ago. If you're not a big fan of Thunderbolt, you're probably going to continue being unhappy with Apple's offerings.

Yup. Been phasing out of OSX for workstations at our studio. A bittersweet end of an era, really. Luckily working cross platform is quite easy these days so we can continue with the laptops for the forseeable future. Thunderbolt works quite well for that use case, but on the desktop the performance penalty of the new design is just too severe.

 

[VirtualRain]

On Apple's Mac Pro website. The first section under performance is Video editing. That means someone very high up in Apple wanted that listed first on the site. It got top billing. Not by accident either. Video editing is what the marketing machine at Apple wants you to know first before you quit reading.



And the very first thing they say on the website about the nMP is this isn't you old Mac Pro. --" the result was something entirely new." So I doubt how they updated the oMP has anything to do with how they're going to update the nMP.



No. While it's is meant to serve the same type user, it's also designed to appeal to more people. How do we capture more market share to pay for all the changes. We broaden our appeal. --Maybe you just want a very powerful word,excel, internet machine that is whisper quite and energy conscious. ---Might play around with 4k down the road. Who knows. Point is it's just not for the "Pros" anymore. Thus a larger market potential.



It means some people seem to have a very personal connection with a brand tag.

I think this is an accurate assessment. However, for the life of me, I don't know what this has to do with whether Apple will refresh the Mac Pro in 2015... Can you just answer this simple question simply... Do you think Apple will refresh the Mac Pro in any way this year?

 

[MacVidCards]

Sure. What I meant was something you'd reasonably put in a tower. You could put it in a tower, but you'd have tons of empty space, as you don't have enough PCI-E lanes for any slots beyond the GPUs. Apple could have maybe done PCI-E GPUs, but we've beaten that discussion to death. It would have required all the breakout wires, which would have given Ive a stroke.

(I'm not endorsing what Apple did with the PCI-E GPUs. But I get their motivations for doing so.)

So, imagine a world where they put some low dollar something like a GT640 on the logic board to create the video output portion of TB. All of the TB hurdles chucked out the window for $50 (Apple's cost)

Enough with trying to find reasons for something that has no particular good reason. Apple could easily have created a machine with TB and PCIE slots. They didn't want to. They have exited the "serious" market and are working their way downhill into "prosumer".

When a prosumer gets red banding in a wedding video, he shrugs. When a DP looking at dailies for Terminator 12 sees red banding he cries foul and lambastes Apple in all the forums. So, keep 2,000,000 prosumers happy (and paying) or play with the big boys?

Apple got a look at real cash with iPod/iPad/iPhone and hasn't looked back.

I would never expect a serious machine from Apple again, whether it be in 2015 or 2020. Prosumer (emphasis on "sumer" as in "paying") is the market and they want shiny with Twitter integration.

A Dual Xeon machine could have had 6 TB ports and plenty of slots for all. It would have been the best machine on the planet and Apple went for ...the middle.

And by the way, stop with the "Only way to have 6TB ports" stuff. For fun, go look through posts before June 2013. Find me someone demanding 6 TB ports . People mentioned that they hoped there would be TB ports, mainly as a way of joining the TB ecosystem, ability to access same drive as rMBP from the field, etc. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY ever said "It had better have 6 TB ports or I'm not buying it". They also never said "It had better take up 1/8 the space or I'm not buying it."

As has been pointed out exactly 1 gazillion times before, this (nMP) was the answer to a question that nobody (outside Apple) had asked.

When will it be updated? When it is cheapest & easiest for Apple to do so. When they run out of the CPUs or AMD stops making the 3+ year old GPUs, etc. It will get 10% faster, be slightly skinnier, and have better Twitter integration. (Maybe a dedicated twitter button, right by the glowing power switch)

 

[handsome pete]

On Apple's Mac Pro website. The first section under performance is Video editing. That means someone very high up in Apple wanted that listed first on the site. It got top billing. Not by accident either. Video editing is what the marketing machine at Apple wants you to know first before you quit reading.

And the very first thing they say on the website about the nMP is this isn't you old Mac Pro. --" the result was something entirely new." So I doubt how they updated the oMP has anything to do with how they're going to update the nMP.

No. While it's is meant to serve the same type user, it's also designed to appeal to more people. How do we capture more market share to pay for all the changes. We broaden our appeal. --Maybe you just want a very powerful word,excel, internet machine that is whisper quite and energy conscious. ---Might play around with 4k down the road. Who knows. Point is it's just not for the "Pros" anymore. Thus a larger market potential.

It means some people seem to have a very personal connection with a brand tag.

As others have pointed out, video editing had been a focal point of the old Mac Pro for a while. The whole Final Cut getting top billing is nothing new, especially when the software was challenging for a spot as an industry leader.

Besides, how big can this "new" market be when they raised the price for entry?

 

[VirtualRain]

Will there be a new MacPro in 2015 ?

When will it be updated? When it is cheapest & easiest for Apple to do so. When they run out of the CPUs or AMD stops making the 3+ year old GPUs, etc. It will get 10% faster, be slightly skinnier, and have better Twitter integration. (Maybe a dedicated twitter button, right by the glowing power switch)

If the Mac Pro is a consumer machine as you say, then it should get more frequent updates. Most of Apples laptops get updates at least once a year, often with a speed bump in between. Not because its cheap and easy, but to make them remain competitive as premium priced computers and to create as frequent an upgrade churn as possible.

So, while I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the target market for this new Mac Pro, I think you're not understanding how and why Apple makes gazillions of dollars... Not by letting their products whither on the vine until it's cheap and easy to update them, but by offering fairly frequent compelling updates that create buying events en masse.

 

[MacVidCards]

If the Mac Pro is a consumer machine as you say, then it should get more frequent updates. Most of Apples laptops get updates at least once a year, often with a speed bump in between. Not because its cheap and easy, but to make them remain competitive as premium priced computers and to create as frequent an upgrade churn as possible.

So, while I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the target market for this new Mac Pro, I think you're not understanding how and why Apple makes gazillions of dollars... Not by letting their products whither on the vine until it's cheap and easy to update them, but by offering fairly frequent compelling updates that create buying events en masse.

Yep, exactly as I said in the quote.

Here it is again:

"When will it be updated? When it is cheapest & easiest for Apple to do so.

Doesn't that describe how MBP refreshes usually work?

 

[VirtualRain]

Will there be a new MacPro in 2015 ?

Yep, exactly as I said in the quote.

Here it is again:

"When will it be updated? When it is cheapest & easiest for Apple to do so.

Doesn't that describe how MBP refreshes usually work?

You will find a high correlation between Apple's consumer computer updates (MBP, MBA, iMac) and new Intel CPU availability... which is certainly not the cheapest time to update and the difficulty of modding the system to accommodate a new CPU is not a factor that either increases or decreases over time.

In fact, you should be arguing the opposite I think... Apple has repeatedly been first to market with technology in their consumer products well ahead of others which is the most expensive and difficult strategy, not the cheapest and easiest. Retina screens, including the new 5K retina iMac (which required a custom Apple chip) are great examples where Apple took the harder, more expensive route in the interest of market differentiation to create new buying/upgrade events amongst consumers.

They can take the harder expensive route because they position their products as premium, high-end offerings at the upper end of the prices for their respective categories, enabling them to make great (~40%) margins in a world where most other vendors are struggling with single digit margins or unprofitable product lines.

The likes of Samsung and Lenovo take the cheap and easy route, waiting for these new technologies to commoditize before adopting them and then selling them for half what Apple charges all while wondering why Apple is so profitable.

So, if the Mac Pro follows suit, Apple should be updating it regularly... At least as often as new CPUs and GPUs are available from suppliers.

 

[MacProCard]

As others have pointed out, video editing had been a focal point of the old Mac Pro for a while. The whole Final Cut getting top billing is nothing new, especially when the software was challenging for a spot as an industry leader.

Besides, how big can this "new" market be when they raised the price for entry?

Not quite. Video editing got top billing plain and simple. You can pretend Apple doesn't follow web design 101 for your message board argument, but that doesn't make it true. And just because you may know about nMP video editing capabilities doesn't mean people looking to move over from Windows do. --That whole new market thing.

How big can this new market be? Very large. How many developers are in the world using PCs? If a machine can crunch video it sure can crunch text/data.

 

[handsome pete]

Not quite. Video editing got top billing plain and simple. You can pretend Apple doesn't follow web design 101 for your message board argument, but that doesn't make it true.

What does this even mean? Video editing got top billing because Final Cut Pro X is an apple product. Plain and simple. Much like video editing got top billing in previous iteration of the Mac Pro. This is nothing new.

And just because you may know about nMP video editing capabilities doesn't mean people looking to move over from Windows do. --That whole new market thing.

What are you getting at here? So you're saying ignorant Windows users are just going to jump ship to the Mac Pro because, "hey look, video!"? And spend more money to do that? Even though Windows machines can perform the same exact tasks?

How big can this new market be? Very large. How many developers are in the world using PCs? If a machine can crunch video it sure can crunch text/data.

I thought this thing was all about video. Again, what does the nMP offer that others don't, that will get them switching from Windows? You keep making this argument, but provide absolutely no reason for it. Using the same buzzwords over and over doesn't mean anything unless you can back them up with supportive claims.

 

[MacProCard]

What does this even mean? Video editing got top billing because Final Cut Pro X is an apple product. Plain and simple. Much like video editing got top billing in previous iteration of the Mac Pro. This is nothing new.

What are you getting at here? So you're saying ignorant Windows users are just going to jump ship to the Mac Pro because, "hey look, video!"? And spend more money to do that? Even though Windows machines can perform the same exact tasks?

I thought this thing was all about video. Again, what does the nMP offer that others don't, that will get them switching from Windows? You keep making this argument, but provide absolutely no reason for it. Using the same buzzwords over and over doesn't mean anything unless you can back them up with supportive claims.

I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand marketing or web development for nothing. It's just everything about oMP = nMP except for the looks with you. And that makes no business sense, common sense...it's like this machine was made for you and you alone. No new markets needed because this is for pros. Very childish if you ask me.

Any day you want to compare who can right the biggest check and thus has the greatest level of business sense...I'm game partner.

Lastly, Microsoft 8 opened the door for people look elsewhere that were pissed they had to learn to a new OS. Only other real competitor is Mac. Crazy huh?

 

[beaker7]

I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand marketing or web development for nothing. It's just everything about oMP = nMP except for the looks with you. And that makes no business sense, common sense...it's like this machine was made for you and you alone. No new markets needed because this is for pros. Very childish if you ask me.

Any day you want to compare who can right the biggest check and thus has the greatest level of business sense...I'm game partner.

Lastly, Microsoft 8 opened the door for people look elsewhere that were pissed they had to learn to a new OS. Only other real competitor is Mac. Crazy huh?

This is getting hilarious.

Also, what's Microsoft 8?

Also interesting that FCPx is being used as a selling point considering its a big reason why they're bleeding share in the high end video market.

 

[handsome pete]

I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand marketing or web development for nothing. It's just everything about oMP = nMP except for the looks with you.

It's like talking to a brick wall. Again, what functionality does the new Mac Pro offer over the old one? You keep dodging the question. Of course Apple went in a different direction. No one's denying that. The only thing unique to it is the form factor. It's no more powerful than any other workstation out there.

And that makes no business sense, common sense...it's like this machine was made for you and you alone. No new markets needed because this is for pros. Very childish if you ask me.

Seriously, where are you getting any of this crap? I couldn't care less who buys the Mac Pro. I don't care who it's for. I'm simply offering opinion based on my personal observations, experience, and relationships. Again, please back up any of your claims with some sort of substance.

Any day you want to compare who can right the biggest check and thus has the greatest level of business sense...I'm game partner.

More word salad, with a touch of internet muscles thrown in. All I'm asking is for some actual reason applied to your arguments other than generalities like "business sense," or "common sense," or "just because." Throw a little substance our way or even try to refute any of our opinions with some logic. Maybe then someone can "right" you a check.

Lastly, Microsoft 8 opened the door for people look elsewhere that were pissed they had to learn to a new OS. Only other real competitor is Mac. Crazy huh?

What's your point? Did Windows 8 really make people jump ship in droves? To a more expensive machine? Having to potentially re-purchase software licenses? That point is no more valid than those who claim everyone jumped over to Windows or AVID/Premiere when Apple debuted the nMP or FCPX.